A University of Denver graduate is leading the Iranian government to peacefully negotiate a diplomatic solution with the U.S. that would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif received his doctorate in International Law and Policy in 1988, after five years of studying and living in Denver. Zarif is a skilled diplomat who is a key player in the current diplomatic dance with Iran.

The Obama administration seized the opportunity offered by the new government in Iran last fall to try to resolve peacefully the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. President Obama’s objective is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and he knows that the American people would oppose using military force unless all other methods had failed.

Last November, the U.S. and its six negotiating partners agreed with Iran on an initial plan that sets the stage for a comprehensive agreement that would satisfy the international community that Iran will not build a nuclear bomb.

No one involved in these negotiations is naïve. Iran could violate its obligations under the plan or be unable to take the actions that assure the world of its peaceful intentions. The verifiable controls and constraints that will be essential to a final agreement might be too demanding for Iran’s government.

But the biggest threat to the negotiations at this beginning phase is coming from the U.S. Senate, where a bill is under consideration that would undermine the negotiations before they even begin and leave the U.S. with a stark choice: military action or living with a nuclear Iran. A military strike would not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity and could result in the very thing the U.S. hopes to prevent: Iran deciding to build nuclear weapons.

The champions of the bill contend that since sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table previously, then more sanctions would make Iran’s leaders even more compliant. They are wrong. Iranian leaders are more likely to see such congressional action as a violation of the agreement and harden their negotiating position — or leave the table entirely. The Senate’s smartest move is not to bring this bill to a vote until it is really needed.

Will President Obama be allowed the time and space to negotiate a comprehensive agreement in return for gradual sanctions relief? Or will the U.S., under the legal action of the Senate, be required to reject unilaterally the agreement reached among the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China to restrain Iran without having to go to war? A new sanctions bill at this time would not only likely kill the negotiations but the sanctions regime as well, as other countries will blame the U.S. for the collapse of the agreement.

Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry are now working to overcome the mutual distrust and deep hostility between Iran and the U.S. and build a structure of international controls to reduce dramatically Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon. The Senate must not stand in the way of progress. If this legislation moves forward, it risks war, an Iran with nuclear weapons, or both.

Thomas R. Pickering was a former undersecretary of state for political affairs and served as U.S. ambassador to Russia, Israel, Jordan and the United Nations. Jim Walsh is a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They will speak before the Denver Council on World Affairs Monday in Denver. To register, go to www.worlddenver.org.

More in Opinion

The back-to-back events of the midterm election and the mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California left America reeling like news that the small town football team had been killed in a car accident on the way to the state championship game. At the very moment we were meant to celebrate our democracy we were forced to mourn one of its...

Looking forward to more compromise in government First, I am a proud Coloradan. Second, I am a proud Denverite. Third, I am a proud Democrat. While thrilled about the deep blue wave that swept Colorado on Election Day, I remain deeply concerned about the future of my state.

The world's oldest political party has developed an aversion to discretion. The Democratic Party is manacled to an over-caffeinated base that believes that deft government can deliver parity of status to everyone while micromanaging the economy's health care sector, which is larger than all but three other foreign nations' economies. Inconveniently, the party must appeal to voters who, living in...